8 Terrible Things About the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Like the WTO agreements or NAFTA, the TPP is an attempt to set the rules of the global economy to favor multinational corporations over everything else, trampling on democracy, national sovereignty and the public good.

But progressive public-interest organizations say that the final text, the fruit of seven years of secretive trade talks between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries, dashed even their low expectations. The deal not only continues most of the troubling features of trade agreements since NAFTA but also breaks worrisome new ground.

Like most recent international economic agreements, the TPP only glancingly resembles a classic trade deal, concerned mainly with tariffs and quotas. Rather, like the WTO agreements or NAFTA, it is an attempt to set the rules of the global economy to favor multinational corporations over everything else, trampling on democracy, national sovereignty and the public good. The more than 600 corporate lobbyists who had access to the draft texts used their insider status to shape the deal, while labor unions, environmentalists and others offered testimony from outside, with little impact.

Like most post-World War II trade deals, the TPP also has a strategic political goal: tying as many countries as possible to the United States as trade partners—often under terms unfavorable to the average American worker—in order to win political support against anyone seen as a rival to the American economic model. When Obama defends the TPP, he often casts it as a challenge to China’s growing role in defining the Asian economy.

In June, with the help of GOP leaders, Obama very narrowly won “fast-track” authority on the deal, restricting Congress to an up-or-down vote, with no amendments. He would no doubt like that vote soon. Repudiating the TPP could become a campaign talking point across party lines. Already, all three Democratic presidential candidates and most of the Republicans have come out in opposition to it.

But Congress has never rejected a trade agreement under fast-track authority, and some TPP opponents suspect that the administration gave a small group of Democrats a pass to vote no on fast track as long as they pledged to vote yes on the final agreement if needed. This is likely to be a close fight.

To inform that fight, we’ve asked experts to explain, in plain English, some of the deal’s most alarming implications.

#1 IT GIVES 9,200 FOREIGN FIRMS THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT OUR COURTS AND ATTACK THE LAWS WE RELY ON FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT, SAFE FOOD AND DECENT JOBS.

Foreign corporations would be empowered to drag the U.S. government in front of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals composed of three private arbitrators. Many ISDS arbitrators are lawyers who rotate between suing governments for corporations and acting as the “judges.”

There is no limit on the amount of our tax dollars the government can be ordered to pay when foreign corporations successfully argue that their TPP rights have been undermined. Compensation orders could include a corporation’s estimate of the future profits it would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking. Even when governments win, under TPP rules they can be ordered to pay for the tribunals’ costs and legal fees, which average $8 million per case.

The TPP’s expansion of the ISDS system would come just as a surge in ISDS cases elevating corporate profits over the public interest has led other countries, such as South Africa and Indonesia, to begin revoking their ISDSenforced treaties. Recent cases include Eli Lilly’s attack on Canada’s cost-saving medicine patent system, Philip Morris’ attack on Australia’s public health policies regulating tobacco, Chevron’s attack on an Ecuadorian court ruling that ordered payment for mass toxic contamination in the Amazon, and Vattenfall’s attack on Germany’s phase-out of nuclear power.

Almost all of the 50 past U.S. ISDS-enforced pacts are with developing nations with few investors here, allowing the United States largely to dodge ISDS tribunals and fines to date. But the TPP would extend ISDS powers to more than 9,200 U.S. subsidiaries of some 1,000 corporations in TPP nations, including the economic powerhouse of Japan.

The tribunals are unaccountable to any electorate. There is no outside appeal on their dictates. In effect, the TPP elevates these foreign firms to equal status with the entire U.S. government.

#2 ITS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS ARE MOSTLY TOOTHLESS, AND IT WOULD DIRECTLY ENCOURAGE FRACKING.

Our air, water and health are all at stake with the TPP, which is why so many environmental groups have expressed grave concern.

Most noticeable is that the roughly 6,000 pages of TPP text don’t even mention the words “climate change,” much less attempt to address the fact that the TPP would increase climate-disrupting emissions. The deal takes a step back from the environmental protections of all U.S. free-trade agreements since 2007 by failing to require TPP countries to fulfill their obligations in a set of core international environmental treaties.

The TPP’s weak conservation rules won’t do enough to adequately protect marine life and wildlife from harmful practices such as shark finning or illegal logging. But fossil fuel corporations would be empowered to challenge our public health and climate safeguards in unaccountable ISDS tribunals. This corporate power grab has been used in past deals to challenge clean energy initiatives, bans or moratoriums on fracking, and more.

Speaking of fracking, we could see a whole lot more of this dirty and destructive practice in our backyards thanks to the TPP. The pact would require our Department of Energy to automatically approve all exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to all TPP countries—including Japan, the world’s largest LNG importer. This means more fracking, air and water pollution, climate emissions and reliance on fossil fuels—when we should keep those fuels in the ground and fully embrace clean energy.

#3 WE’D LOSE MILLIONS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS.

Between 1997 and 2014, America lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs. The vast majority, according to the Economic Policy Institute, vanished as a result of growing trade deficits with America’s free-trade and investment-deal partners. Some 850,000 jobs were lost to NAFTA after it took effect in 1994. China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 cost the United States a staggering 3.2 million manufacturing jobs over the next dozen years.

But the numbers on the TPP look even worse. The Wall Street Journal calculates that by 2025, the deal would increase the U.S. trade deficit in manufacturing, car assembly and car parts by $55.8 billion a year. At that rate, based on the U.S. Department of Commerce formula for jobs created by exports, the TPP would cost another 323,000 American manufacturing workers their jobs. That’s almost a million jobs every three years.

And that is a conservative estimate, because the TPP negotiators failed to include enforceable methods to stop foreign labor abuses, including poverty wages and perilous working conditions. This facilitates a race to the bottom. Corporations move factories overseas because they can’t get away with paying Americans the $107 a month that is the wage floor in Vietnam.

Also, disastrously, the TPP would lower the minimum requirement for cars and auto parts to be considered produced by a U.S. trade partner. The proportion would fall from 62.5 percent under NAFTA to 45 percent under the TPP, which means more than half of a vehicle could be manufactured in China while auto companies would still benefit from zero U.S. tariffs.

For decades, regulations for free-trade agreements like the TPP have lined the pockets of the wealthy and emptied those of workers. This must stop.

#4 IT DOES NOTHING TO FIX OUR ENORMOUS TRADE DEFICIT.

Our current trade deficit is close to $500 billion annually, or 3 percent of our GDP. This money is creating demand and employment in other countries, not the United States, and implies the loss of close to 3 million U.S. jobs a year.

This matters hugely in the context of an economy facing a shortfall in demand, or “secular stagnation.” In more normal times, the demand lost to the trade deficit could be replaced by more investment or consumption spending. But under secular stagnation, neither will fill that loss.

Yet the TPP fails to address the main reason for our large and persistent trade deficit: currency manipulation by other countries. Lowering one’s currency by 10 percent against the dollar has the same effect as imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports and paying a 10 percent subsidy on exports. Raising the price of exports and lowering the price of imports makes U.S. goods and services less competitive internationally and domestically.

A number of countries, including TPP parties Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, have engaged in this practice over the last two decades, driving up the U.S. trade deficit.

Ordinarily we would expect the value of a currency of a country running a large trade deficit to decline. That would make its goods and services more competitive internationally, bringing its trade closer to balance. However, the dollar has not fallen in response to the trade deficit because the central banks of China and other countries have purchased huge amounts of dollar-based assets, such as U.S. government bonds. By holding these assets, central banks prop up the value of the dollar, keeping the U.S. trade deficit large.

The Obama administration opted not to make currency management an issue in TPP negotiations. As a result, there is only a side agreement that provides no new authority to combat currency management beyond what exists in current law.

#5 IT WOULD MAKE MEDICINES MORE EXPENSIVE, AND COMPROMISE ACCESS FOR MANY PEOPLE IN THE PACIFIC RIM.

In all countries, people and health systems depend on low-cost generic medicines to make treatment affordable. Prices of patented drugs are rising every year. Absent generic competition, there is little reason for drug companies to bring drug prices down. The brand-name pharmaceutical industry business model relies on maximizing profits by selling at very high prices to the few rather than affordable prices to the many. Most countries, including our own, ration care.

The problem is especially grave in developing countries, and the TPP would make it worse. TPP rules would require countries to change their laws in order to expand drug companies’ monopoly powers, leading consumers and healthcare providers to pay higher prices on more drugs for longer—or go without needed treatment. TPP rules are not about providing basic patent protections, as White House messaging sometimes suggests. All TPP countries already have those rules.

Instead, TPP rules are lobbyist-driven bonuses for the industry. The rules include patent term extensions and patents on new uses of old medicines, and procedural requirements to give pharmaceutical companies greater opportunity to influence government drug coverage and reimbursement decisions. There are marketing exclusivity rules, which create pharmaceutical monopolies even when a product is offpatent. There is no compelling evidence that these rules will spur medical innovation or create jobs.

Some brave TPP negotiators fought the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Trade Representative for many years. If it were not for their efforts, the TPP would threaten even more lives. Nevertheless, if the deal is approved, the TPP’s final rules will lead to preventable suffering and death.

#6 IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE SAFETY OF OUR FOOD.

Most immediately, the TPP would open up a flood of seafood, dairy, fruit and vegetable imports to the United States at a time when import inspections are already severely underfunded. The United States currently inspects just 2 percent of food imports, and there is evidence that fish and seafood are already compromised: Consumer Reports found that 60 percent of seafood (91 percent of which is imported) tested was contaminated.

The TPP also gives companies new ways to challenge food safety processes and inspections. It would create a “rapid response mechanism” that would allow foreign companies to challenge food safety decisions and would compel inspectors to make those new assessments quickly, creating new pressures on already hard-pressed inspectors with no new resources or even basic agreement on what food safety should look like.

The deal would also increase corporate control over agriculture. The TPP is modeled on past free-trade deals that have made wildly inaccurate promises about benefits for small farmers. Under NAFTA, when U.S. corn exports to Mexico increased dramatically, more than 2 million Mexican farmers were driven from their lands. But the number of U.S. family farmers fell sharply, too. Exports increased, but revenues for most farmers did not. Along the way, large multinational companies gained more control over production, so farmers have fewer options of where to buy or sell their goods. It shouldn’t surprise us that trickledown economics doesn’t work for farmers any better than it does for factory workers.

The TPP aims above all to give multinational corporations more power over standards and supply chains, which expands a U.S. agricultural system designed to produce crops for export rather than to provide consumers with healthy food.

#7 IT WOULD DESTABILIZE GLOBAL FINANCE.

During nearly all of the seven years negotiators worked on the TPP, the world was mired in or recovering from the worst economic crisis in 75 years—one triggered by the collapse of a deregulated, overgrown and corrupt financial sector. Negotiators must not have noticed, because the TPP gives the world’s biggest banks and finance companies even more power. They could much more easily challenge and overturn laws and regulations in countries where they invest—plus collect compensation if their profits don’t meet the firm’s “expectations” as a result of public policies. The new terms will make it easy for big finance to file challenges to government regulations or policies in ISDS tribunals and win. The loser? Global financial stability.

The TPP would prohibit capital controls, which permit countries to block destabilizing flights of “hot money” from investors who hope to take momentary advantage of speculative opportunities, then pull out of the country just before the bubble they create collapses. It would also stop enactment of financial transaction taxes, a means of dampening speculation and raising needed public revenue.

The list goes on. TPP “market access” rules would undermine efforts to limit the size of banks or to establish “firewalls” between financial activities, such as restoring U.S. Glass-Steagall Act regulations, which were eliminated in 1999, contributing to the subsequent financial crisis. It would make it impossible for countries to reject financial “innovations” such as derivatives—the foundation of many “bubbles” that burst in 2008—if they exist in any other TPP nation. Despite evidence swirling around them every day in the form of global financial chaos, negotiators crafted the TPP’s financial rules following a flawed deregulatory model that was an affront to democracy and sound economic policy—just to protect the “expectations” of profits by big multinational banks and financial firms.

—David Moberg, Senior Editor, In These Times

#8 IT WOULD STRENGTHEN ALREADY-FLAWED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGULATIONS IN AWFUL WAYS, PARTICULARLY ON THE INTERNET.

Copyright laws in America have already had a profound effect on Internet users. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, was intended to update copyright for the digital age. But over the years, the terms of the law have infringed on fair use and free speech. This ranges from YouTube users flagged for copyright violation because they posted videos of their baby dancing to a Prince song, to more troubling instances of investigative journalists being censored based on things like sketchy defamation claims.

Without an opportunity for the public to weigh in, the U.S. Trade Representative—the lead U.S. negotiator on the TPP—and negotiators for other countries were flooded by lobbyists from corporations, Hollywood and music executives, pushing for more stringent protections on their content.

The result? An agreement that forces what’s broken with copyright law in the United States upon other countries. The TPP will lengthen onerous copyright terms from a previous trade agreement—keeping information and art locked away from the public domain for decades and opening the floodgates for further abuse of copyright laws and censorship.

What’s more, Internet service providers will continue to hastily remove content flagged as a copyright violation, with little review. And countries will be required and incentivized to deliver heavy-handed sentences and fines to alleged infringers.

Perhaps most shocking to anyone who owns a website is a requirement that countries publish databases of names and addresses associated with certain domains. This is a paricularly troubling step for activists and journalists who could face threats and intimidation for the issues they champion— deterring many from speaking out at all.

This is not a done deal. The TPP must go to lawmakers in each country for final passage. Before that happens, activists must be swift to ring the alarm bells and ensure that the very architecture of the Internet is not broken.

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. He can be reached at davidmoberg@inthesetimes.com.

I don't like to see anybody lose jobs, but it was a net positive for the U.S. We lost some manufacturing, but it was beneficial for other industries such as a farmers & auto. I'm sure they did predict that also, but tariffs were lowered and GDP increased. You need to look at the big picture.

Posted by bryan083 on 2018-01-30 14:17:22

And do you feel vindicated by the results since then?Or are you starting to suspect that, just maybe, possibly, perhaps you got jacked?

Posted by smartalek on 2018-01-30 10:44:49

Sorry, but under the circumstances, that's a distinction without a difference.That "result" was entirely predictable -- and predicted by many critics.The proponents and drafters were cautioned about the need to put worker (and environmental, while we're at it) protections into the Agreement, as enforceable provisions.They specifically chose not to do so.That is exactly the point at which those "results" became "goal"s.

Posted by smartalek on 2018-01-30 10:42:21

everyone will be out of work in the US

Posted by Burt on 2017-01-24 17:49:46

How about we grow our own crops and keep everyone off our fishing watersd

Posted by Burt on 2017-01-24 17:49:04

This is what obama wanted....lets destroy our country....GO TRUMP....

Posted by Rick on 2017-01-23 16:57:16

I'm not sure anyone will see this now.....but....why, why, why, would Obama want such a horrible agreement?

Posted by Gail on 2017-01-23 10:36:39

It's moot now, but free trade is simply codifying goods across national lines so business can trade, say, fish or cheese or any type of equipment in the same way that one trades commodities. Now, if you want to buy a salmon, which type, how big, how old - is it really the correct species? fresh or salt water, farmed or wild, etc, etc. But if you buy a barrel of light west texas crude oil, it is the exact same oil every time. You don't need to inspect every barrel and often someone will buy it and sell it without actually having taken possession of it. So it does the same to every good under the sun.

But certain industries are protected or idiosyncratic in each region or country. Maybe Vietnamese eat a 'salmon' that's caught in brackish water that's not 100% salmon. Those fisherman are like F you, this is salmon, and everyone else is like F you, no it's not.

Or in the US and most places agriculture is heavily subsidized. This creates distortions that we don't see because we've never known any different. Maybe south american corn tastes good as hell, but it's so expensive that we never bought it. (that's why americans are fat, is the govt subsidizes corn and corn syrup, which makes fake sugar unnaturally cheap.)

So each country is forced to make concessions that they wouldn't otherwise make because of entrenched, rent-seeking special interests. So signing a trade deal is also a way to kiss off XYZ corp that has been protecting its market share and used to be able to get away with selling subpar goods, but now has to compete freely. And they will say or do anything to prevent that from happening.

As a result, yeah, unskilled labor is on the auction block. (it becomes commodified as well) and more competition means ppl have to work harder. in the long run, better because we stay ahead. Bad for the rent-seekers, including unskilled labor who seek to get paid more than they're actually worth for doing a job that literally anyone can do.

Something for everyone to hate and only a moderate amount of good (but vastly beneficial, on balance - besides, what's the alternative, to go backwards?)

The tribunal stuff is a disburse mechanism. Because legislatures aren't beholden to trade deals - ie a new congress might say F your trade deal, we're putting a $5 tariff on Chinese widgets because there's a widget factory in my district and they paid for my re-election. Well the tribunal has to be able to deal w that w/out fiddlef_cking around with 217 national legislatures. Thus extrajudicial, in that sense.

America also sticks labor protections in there so foreign companies can't run their workers into the ground (thus producing cheaper crap) as well as a bunch of EXTREMELY IMPORTANT intellectual property protections. I work in media and every time someone bootlegs something it's that much less $ I get paid. It's like strong property rights, IP protections allow people the confidence to do business in that space.

Posted by brian on 2016-11-28 19:23:47

Sure there are flaws, but we need to work to eliminate tariffs. Does anyone here not know about Smoot-Hawley?

Posted by bryan083 on 2016-11-24 23:05:46

Wrong Rick. NAFTA was designed to lower tariffs and increase GDP. Jobs going overseas was a result, but not the goal.

Posted by bryan083 on 2016-11-24 22:09:25

Another article that simply ignores one of the worst aspects of TPP, the AIPAC-supportedclause that calls for punishing any business supporting the BDS boycott of Israel. But then I keep forgetting that criticism of Israel is not permitted on pain of extreme punishment.

Posted by Cerberus79 on 2016-11-04 20:00:13

Really. And who is now rushing the agreement through while telling us it's 'good for farmers' and such while squelching discussion as of June 30?

Posted by Doug Bowman on 2016-10-27 16:09:25

Amen. I've been saying that since Bill's second term in 1996!

Posted by selfpotato on 2016-09-21 07:12:55

I guess that's part of the "lesser of two evils" voting procedure we have.

Posted by Bruce on 2016-09-19 07:52:09

YUP you are right

Posted by William Bednarz on 2016-09-12 11:45:21

People should remember that Trump's business experience is in making and accumulating wealth FROM them, not in generating wealth FOR them. It's true that Trump has employed a lot of people and it's also true that he has sold all of their labor at a profit, whether in ties (from China) and other branded products, hotel rooms, golf, casinos, or Trump University. Donald knows how to get money from YOU, the customer, and hire YOU at the hotel, the golf course or the casino. This is not relevant to making YOU, the citizen, "great again".

As for 2A, you can only fantasize about shooting people, you can't really do it.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-09-11 09:51:52

HE'S NOT PART OF THE BOYS CLUB.....

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 09:13:03

between the two, lesser of to evils. Iam voting for Trump because of his business experience and pro 2nd amendment. The Bill of Rights are for the people, we cant lose that or we're done...........

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 09:12:15

I believe they do.

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 09:07:49

NAFTA was never design to bring jobs to US. NAFTA was designed to move jobs over seas. Ross Perot got it right....

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 09:05:10

WHO OWNS THE MEDIA????????

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 08:58:04

President who cares about his legacy? He will be remembered as the weakest president ever. The middle class has been torn down and business's are making record profits thanks to NAFTA and now TPP. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS A REVOLUTION....

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 08:57:27

He renegotiated nafta, its called TPP....

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 08:51:30

Who remembers Ross Perot say when nafta is passed you will hear a sucking sound. He was right, we lost jobs to third world countries working for penny's. Thousands of jobs have been lost and now they want to pass TPP agreement. obama is out to destroy this country.

Posted by Rick on 2016-09-11 08:50:24

#1 These tribunals are not nearly as scary as suggested, and the tobacco companies are excempted - in other words, they can't sue countries for placing restriction on their products, which had been a problmem in the past.#2 Fracking creates cheap natural gas, which it the #1 killer of coal - a much dirtier fuel.#3. The sectors that are losing jobs because of technological changes will continue to do so, agreement or none. Respond to these trends, do not fight them.#4 Reducing subsidies on food eliminates many imbalances - such as the subsidies that have made high fructose corn syrup a part of our diet.

That's all I got right now. But subsidies distort the economy.

Trade is good. We can compete with the rest of the world. We get cheaper stuff because of free trade. Imbalances are not necessarily bad or indication of a problem.

Posted by brian on 2016-08-31 15:47:32

What pro-TPP arguments can you give us that will reveal that we are only afraid and ignorant?BTW, I asked another pro-TPP poster this same question. They just doubled down on the "What hogwash!!" response.

Posted by Clarisse73 on 2016-08-31 02:20:46

Of the 218 Congressmen who voted to fast track the TPP, 190 were Republicans and 28 (including Debbie Wasserman Schultz) were Democrats. Of those Congressmen who voted against TPP, 158 were Democrats and 50 were Republicans.

FOR: 190 GOP/ 28 Dems

Against: 158 Dems/ 50 GOP

Posted by Clarisse73 on 2016-08-31 02:13:18

You are right about the RNC not liking Trump because, among other things, they couldn't control him. But now there are about 60+ days until the election in November and Trump is not doing that great. I'm thinking that, in this go-round, it'll be Trump's turn to get the shite kicked out of him.

Posted by Clarisse73 on 2016-08-31 01:48:31

There is no need for Republicans to "trump" President Obama on this trade deal. We should all have seen the writing on the wall when the TPP turned out to be the one thing with which Republicans and our President could happily agree.

Posted by Clarisse73 on 2016-08-31 01:43:06

Uncle Tom Obama once said that he would renegotiate NAFTA,but now he is toasting a glass of wine with his Canadian and Mexican amigos.

I am pretty sure Clinton is going to be flip-flopper on this one too.

Posted by Goodwork on 2016-08-28 05:11:04

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Posted by William Bednarz on 2016-08-12 12:25:33

Hillary's BIG PUSH for pay-off!

Posted by saulmonella on 2016-08-11 12:00:32

The MEDIA is the problem. What happened to investigative reporting or is just for the likes of Kardashians and other drivel.

Posted by saulmonella on 2016-08-11 11:59:28

was this written by a republican? because it sure sounds like it was written by a republican. ASIA'S TAKIN OUR JOBS! TRADE DEFICIT!

Posted by Nick Rockway on 2016-08-10 19:46:06

currency manipulation - have you checked the price of gold?? LOST HALF ITS VALUE OVERNIGHT??? Buy stock - a good deal it's going up?? then a large stockholder sells and it drops....buy cheap sell dear . . . but my dear your are being used. Bank Bailouts?? Foreclosures?? Housing bubble and your pension sinks.. The increased fees paid do not help - ask New Jersey as Governor Chris Christie doubled the fees paid to Wall Street, and announced people will not be able to afford the lifestyle they want.... To make sure he's right - he didn't make the agreed payments - 40 billion dollar shortfall...the pension loses on investments and more of a shortfall WHOSE HOLDING THE BAG??

Posted by William Bednarz on 2016-08-09 13:56:30

I would be interested to hear them, to better understand the issues. Thanks.

the shame is on the media for not reporting this - They are more wrong than he is, they were banking on making money on it at our expense

Posted by William Bednarz on 2016-08-03 17:29:38

This is hogwash. There are fundamental flaws in each of the arguments that don't hold up. Opposition to free trade deals is based on fear and ignorance.

Posted by brian on 2016-08-02 08:18:52

Thoughtful high-profile Republicans are the ones who limit their platform concerns exclusively to high-end tax cuts-----because of the substantial benefits they might receive-----or not.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-08-01 22:25:47

Your entry sounds like gibberish to me.

Posted by phillip sawicki on 2016-08-01 07:17:24

"Thoughtful high-profile Republicans"? Under what rock did you find them?

Posted by phillip sawicki on 2016-08-01 07:14:39

using an example which one has affect on 99 percent of population example the car...

if one try to import a car, first all part need to be conform with all safety standard, then government has right to put a tax on which one might makes it price higher than us manufactured items..

simplified, equalizing the differences of labor... then immediately doesn't matter what conditions under the foreign part made.. that is their own social problem.. not ours..

on other side, American manufacturers also need to be more efficient instead raising prices..price shouldn't include union wages..a practical business man would know how this trade agreement can benefit for us..

Posted by Viktor Zsigrai on 2016-07-31 11:33:48

The RNC dislikes Trumo because they can't control him and his success reveals how pointless and ineffectual they are. He kicked the shit out of the three you imagine the they prefer so your argument is dumb. And you're in for an unpleasant surprise in November. Should be fun to watch

Posted by UncleMikey515 on 2016-07-03 23:36:25

At this time, Donald has only been "wildly successful" in rallies and primaries with people who are already firmly in the right-wing camp. The general election-----where OTHERS weigh in-----has not yet been held. You may not be worried about it, but we hear that some thoughtful high-profile Republicans are.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-07-03 18:22:46

The "antics," as you call them, have been wildly successful. Not one of those three had the tiniest chance of winning. Try again

Posted by UncleMikey515 on 2016-07-03 18:07:54

Well, that's your opinion. I'm going to guess that Ryan and McConnell are worried Trump might lose on his antics alone and that, at this moment, they wish they were running Walker or Rubio or Kasich.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-07-03 15:12:41

Likelihood of victory has nothing to do with the RNC not liking Trump. He has a better chance of winning than any other candidate on the right

Posted by UncleMikey515 on 2016-07-03 14:55:43

A disastrous plan. Time to say, "No!"

Posted by Rob Bear on 2016-05-21 05:56:46

It is just another step towards one world order.

Posted by Bradley A Harris on 2016-05-17 11:23:56

He's not trying to push anything, he just has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Posted by OneHits on 2016-05-17 04:18:08

So what is the cost of a 4 year college BS degree in India $5000? or $10,000 total for 4 years? The US degree is what about $50,000 to $80,000 plus. So how many countries can afford to pay a salary high enough to pay off that student loan? Those college grads will continue to live in the basement while working some part time service.

Posted by robert corbett on 2016-05-09 03:34:35

Obama thinks about "the people" every time he plays golf in Martha's Vineyard or Hawaii .......

Posted by robert corbett on 2016-05-09 03:23:45

You are so wrong..Republicans don't like this deal..it a terrible deal.. Who is pushing it through the Democrats? Hell even Bernie Sanders thinks this deal is bad! And I don't like Bernie only thing he and I agree on... SO What kind of crap are you trying to Push here??

Posted by Letts A on 2016-05-02 18:01:32

The RNC thinks this particular front-runner will lose to Hillary Clinton. Except for that, they'd like him fine.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-03-29 17:59:46

you boneheadThe RNC is actively trying to sabotage their on front-runner!THINK!Ask yourself Why?

Posted by jojo on 2016-03-29 17:46:09

So those people who are mad at Republicans for wanting these trade deals are going to put a Republican (Trump) in The White House to bring those other Republicans to heel? Because he runs as a Republican but says he's different while he has his ties made overseas? Plumb goofy.

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2016-03-17 20:59:27

Most of the Republicans love this. It is pro corporation.

Posted by earthcaretaker on 2016-03-17 19:23:42

This is entirely the wrong way of looking at it. They're not flaws, they're features. The negatiators are smart people, they must have thought of these things. Meaning they purposefully left them in. After all, who cares about the middle class when corporations need to make MOAR MONEY!!!!!!!!

Posted by Biohazard89 on 2015-12-30 00:18:41

go to united students against sweatshops for connection to us campus movement against Vietnam China Honduras clothing manufacturers, 2005-2015 over 155 us schools represented. 12.21.2015 from public offices atlanta

Posted by Friend on 2015-12-22 01:11:37

The TPP is Economic TREASON! PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Posted by NewCenturion on 2015-12-20 23:25:51

Republicans have the votes to trump Obama on this, don't they?

Posted by FriendlyGoat on 2015-12-19 22:21:42

Having worked with NAFTA, that program which was to bring more jobs to the US worker, the same game will happen. Here is an interesting issue, the business gets tax breaks for training and new equipment and the next year will get tax breaks when they go to another country. Five years later they move back to the US and get more tax breaks. Businees gets tax breaks for hiring workers, but those workers can be Green Card or H Visa workers. Make business pay for all retraining of laidoff workers. Small business in the US will take a hit with the US worker going down again. Good points, but who will listen. Expect the US to become like India, new grads with skills waiting to go to another country for employment.

Posted by 6384601 on 2015-12-19 13:39:58

What astonishes me most about TPP is that Obama thought the secret could be kept. He is evidently a president who cares about his legacy, and this agreement, along with its secrecy, flies in the face of everything he said in 2008. A whole lot of us thought he cared about the people, as evidently, did the Oslo Peace Prize Committee. A whole lot of us have been deceived. We did have a premonition, however. In one debate he commented that we would have to revisit Nafta, and that was killed in an instant.

Posted by larrysherk on 2015-12-19 11:48:15

It might be bad for the U.S. but I believe it will be even worse for Canada. Under the last trade agreement signed with the U.S. and Mexico Canada has been sued by corporations (for infringing their ability to make money because of our laws (sic)) more than any other country. This deal will only cement that state of affairs making us vulnerable to the same sort of predatory attacks by European corporations,welcome to the brave not new world of shadow economic deals.

Posted by Josiane Ochman on 2015-12-18 13:35:44

The TPP (Toilet Paper Protocol, for what it does to countries constitutions), 100% proof, of exactly who Uncle Tom Obama really is. The mask gone, the smooth talking puppetprompter reader stripped bare for the world to see.Hope and change, but for who, the 1% and only for the 1%.

Posted by rtb61 on 2015-12-16 21:31:43

I agree with these flaws. These were basic implications that should have been known long ago, but were kept secret from us by our President and Congress. It's outrageous pushing forward even as the harm of current trade agreements - such as being forced to remove "country of origin" from meat and "dolphin safe" from tuna - are apparent.